The Heart Of A Dog Analysis

The complex narrative structure of The Heart of a Dog, as Schneider rightly observes, can be incorporated into the reading for a ‘range of interpretations’. Building upon his examination of the ‘close association between character and narrative style’, an argument can be brought forward that the novella gives rise to criticism of how the ‘Other’ – in this case, the animal – is treated. It is important to understand how the narrative changes are achieved through the shifting of diegetic level and focalisation. According to Gerard Genette, a narrative theorist, there are three diegetic levels that can be distinguished, with extradiegetic (narration outside text) and intradiegetic (narration within text) being the most pertinent to this discussion. …show more content…
The voice is internally focalised, with Sharik’s subjective perception on display. This is also interweaved with the voice of an extradiegetic, heterodiegetic (‘third person’) narrator who is not present in the story but still has external focalisation on Sharik. The significance here is that the focus lies mostly with Sharik, his stream of consciousness revealing his thoughts, feelings and motivations. The internal focalisation allows deeper exploration of him as a being, an individual endowed with a greater sense of importance and immovable presence in society. In doing this, the reader is able to value him as a character and is more likely to empathise with his …show more content…
The narrative shift and break between chapters may not be purely incidental. Preobhazensky enters the story mid-way through the first chapter, luring Sharik into following him home. The second chapter then commences with Sharik marvelling at the door of Preobhazensky’s ‘luxurious flat’, where the nightmare of the story begins and ends. There is an overall sense of foreboding, as he stands unaware of the forthcoming horror he is about to enter. There are hints of his impending downfall wherein his importance as a being starts to diminish, just as his own voice does among the narration. Laursen also notes that by entering Preobhazensky’s apartment, Sharik’s ‘control of narration is completely relinquished’ (497). The heterodiegetic narrator claims dominance and the focalisation still remains on Sharik, albeit externally. This narration ‘interposes greater distance’ between him and the reader, with phrases like ‘said firmly to himself’ (16) and ‘thought the dog’ (17). Thus, it fails to elicit the same sort of intimacy that came with the direct exposure to his inner